Criminal Law Keyed to Johnson
United States v. Weitzenhoff
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Michael Weitzenhoff and Thomas Mariana (Defendants) managed the East Honolulu Community Services Sewage Treatment Plant (the Plant) located near a popular Oahu swimming and surfing beach. The Plant operated under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which placed limits on the total amount of purified solids and chemicals that could be discharged on an average day over a 30-day period. The permit also imposed monitoring and sampling requirements. One of the solid substances generating during the treatment process, waste activated sludge (WAS), was generally pumped into separate holding tanks located at the facility and hauled away. Instead of continuing the practice of hauling away WAS, Defendants instead instructed two Plant employees to dispose of 436,000 pounds of WAS directly into the ocean on 40 separate occasions. The discharges were not recorded or subject to monitoring or sampling requirements and violated the Plant’s daily effluent limits mandated by the NPDES permit. Thereafter, Defendants conspired to cover up the events and failed to report the discharges to any state or federal agency. In a 31-count indictment, Defendants were charged with violating the Clean Water Act (CWA). A jury found defendants guilty on six of the 31 counts. Defendants appealed.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.